The benefits are reduced risk of penile cancer and a slightly lower risk of contracting HIV. However, penile cancer is already very rare (breast cancer is significantly more common) and survivable. As for HIV, the benefits are virtually irrelevant in the western world, where it is transmitted most commonly via unprotected male-male sexual contact and contaminated drug needles. Circumcision doesn't protect against male-male transmission at all, and obviously doesn't protect against dirty needles. In terms of heterosexual sex, it's more difficult for men to contract it from women than the other way around, and the difference between circumcised and uncircumcised risk is pretty small.

Not to mention, having unprotected sex regardless of foreskin status is dumb dumb dumb! I'm unsure if there have been studies done comparing the risk of contracting HIV when using condoms in both circumcised and intact men, but I cannot imagine there would be a discernible difference.

There are a lot of issues with the African studies. The biggest being that the study was ended before the circumcised men were allowed to have intercourse again, meanwhile the uncircumcised men were free to behave as they pleased. The second issue is that the "60% decrease" that so many people cite is the relative decrease, not absolute decrease. The absolute decrease was only 1.31%. and finally, the man who conducted the studies is David R. Tomlinson, inventor of the AccuCirc device. In regards to HIV, we have one of the highest circ rates in the developed world and one of the highest HIV rates. Most, if not all, western European countries have a significantly lower circ rate as well as a much lower rate of HIV. and as you mentioned, African studies aren't very applicable to us.

You're right about penile cancer, it's ridiculously rare, a male is more likely to get breast cancer. There have also been studies associating circumcision with penile cancer on the scar line, but the risk was also ridiculously low and not really concerning.